Show simple item record

A Subject Matter Summary for "Compatibility"

dc.creatoren
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-24T18:07:10Zen
dc.date.available2015-08-24T18:07:10Zen
dc.date.created1977en
dc.date.issueden
dc.identifier.urien
dc.description[MD] Compatibility is a core concept in historic preservation. To keep a landmark structure or neighborhood vital and relevant in the modern world while retaining its historic character, the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 (the "Act") allows limited new development/alterations at a landmark or in a historic district so long as it deemed "compatible" with the character of the historic district. This accommodation for "compatible" construction, however, must be applied as consistently as possible so as to avoid arbitrary application of historic preservation law. Generally speaking, the Act, Mayor's Agent, and court decisions support a continuum of protection, with alterations to landmarks given strict scrutiny and new construction within historic districts given slightly more leeway. The basis for this distinction lies in the text of the Act, itself. For contributing structures within historic districts, two of the purposes of the Act include "encourag[ing] their adaptation for current use" and assuring "that alterations of existing structures are compatible with the character of the historic district."{1} New construction in historic districts is similarly treated, as the Act seeks to "assure that new construction and subdivision of lots in an historic district are compatible with the character of the historic district."{2} The twin purposes of the Act for alterations to landmarks, on the other hand, do not mention "compatibility" _per se_: i.e., they must "retain and enhance historic landmarks in the District of Columbia… [and] encourage their adaptation for current use"{3} as well as "to encourage the restoration of historic landmarks."{4} It was obvious that not much in the way of alterations or new construction was contemplated for landmark structures. Because of the difficulty in determining whether a proposed alteration or new construction fits within the term "compatible," the Historic Preservation Office ("HPO") has released guidelines for new construction in historic districts and additions to historic buildings.{5} The Guidelines for New Construction explain, "Compatibility is achieved through careful attention to the following design principles of building: setback, orientation, scale, proportion, rhythm, massing, height, materials, color, roof shape, details and ornamentation, [and] landscape features."{6} The Guidelines for Additions adds the consideration of "reversibility"--the ability to undo the change without damaging the original structure.{7} The Mayor’s Agent can also consider a development proposal’s adherence to the DC Comprehensive Plan when considering compatibility.{8} Importantly, the guidelines discourage "exact clone[s]" of historic buildings or styles, as this "creates a false sense of history." Instead, a compatible building should show a district’s evolution and remain in its own time.{9} One major issue with applying notions of compatibility is in the area of updating historic windows. The Historic Preservation Office and Commission on Fine Arts consistently find vinyl windows incompatible with historic districts because vinyl windows have a different finish from traditional wood and metal windows, and they also have profiles and dimensions of their constituent parts that differ from the originals.{10} Practically speaking, while alterations to landmarks or new construction that follow demolition are required to be compatible, the central issue in many of these cases is the demolition or partial demolition of a structure itself and not the compatibility of the alteration or new construction which will follow. For new construction in historic districts, compatibility can be the sole issue, unless a demolition permit is first requested.{11} Thus, few court decisions and Mayor’s Agent decisions turn solely on the issue of compatibility. While courts have commented on the standard used to judge compatibility in the context of alteration and new construction,{12} DC courts have never overruled a compatibility finding by the Mayor’s Agent. Under DC law the Mayor’s Agent enjoys great discretion in making the compatibility determination and can rely on a variety of extrinsic factors. Increasingly, the Mayor’s Agent will defer to the HPRB’s expertise on questions of compatibility. In a case involving a rowhouse at 2422 Tracy Place NW,{13} the Applicants sought an after-the-fact permit to allow the replacement of part of the slate roof with fiberglass shingles. The Applicants argued that the fiberglass shingles were compatible with the historic district. However, the HPO testified that the other examples cited by the Applicants were either installed before the creation of the district or were installed illegally. The Mayor’s Agent deferred to the HPRB’s expertise on questions of style and material compatibility because, citing a previous Mayor’s Agent case: "members of the HPRB are chosen for their expertise and interest in historic preservation and are confirmed by the District of Columbia Council."{14} In contrast, the Mayor’s Agent is a neutral figure who applies the law to protect the individual and public rights recognized in the law. In _Gondelman v. DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,_ the court upheld the Mayor’s Agent’s finding that the proposed addition of a curb cut, driveway, and garage disrupting the "berm" in front of the property was incompatible with the character of the historic district. This berm was a significant feature of the historic district and was part of the aesthetic sought by the original development at the turn of the century. The court upheld the Mayor’s Agent’s examination of the proposed alterations not only on the exterior appearance of the structure itself within the historic district but also of the history and the relationship of the entire site to the historic district around it. In Reneau v. District of Columbia, the court upheld an incompatibility determination and ruled that the decision to consider all vistas affected by an alteration is within the discretion of the Mayor’s Agent.{15} However, alterations that cannot be seen from any public vista are therefore virtually per se compatible with the character of the historic district because they arguably have no impact on its character. ----- {1} D.C. CODE § 6-1101(b)(1)(A) & (B) (2014) {2} D.C. CODE § 6-1101(b)(1)(C) (2014) {3} See Gondelman v. Dep’t of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 789 A.2d 1243, 1245 (D.C. 2002) {4} D.C. CODE § 6-1101(b)(2) (2014) {5} For a full list of design guidelines, see http://planning.dc.gov/page/design-guidelines. {6} DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES: NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, available at http://planning.dc.gov/node/594262 (last visited July 2, 2015). {7} DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES: ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS available at http://planning.dc.gov/node/594362 (last visited July 2, 2015). {8} See _supra_ note 3 at 1246-47. {9} _Supra_ note 6 at 2. {10} _See_ Application of Douglas McFadden, HPA No. 11-490 (August 20, 2012). {11} District Intown Properties, Ltd. v. DC Dep’t of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 680 A.2d 1373, 1375 (D.C. 1996) ("[§ 6-1107] requires denial of [new construction] permits on the basis of ... incompatibility, standing alone."). {12} _Gondelman v. Dep’t of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,_ 789 A.2d 1283 (D.C. 2002); Reneau v. DC, 676 A.2d 913 (D.C. 1996); and Comm. for Washington’s Riverfront Parks v. Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177, 1195-96 (D.C. 1982). {13} _In re_ Lisa Foster and Alan Bersin, HPA No. 13-600 (August 29, 2014). {14} _See_ 2225 California Street, NW, H.P.A. No. 11-472 (Feb. 13, 2013); see 1922 Belmont Road, NW, H.P.A. No.14-18 (Dec.18, 2014). {15} 676 A.2d 913. 915 (D.C. 1996). -----en
dc.subjectCompatibilityen
dc.titleA Subject Matter Summary for "Compatibility"en
dc.typeArticleen


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record